Mumbai Court October 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Navnirman Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR801
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. All these four petitions have raised a common challenge and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent State authorities, Rule. Respective parties waive service. With the consent of the parties the petitions were taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. Writ Petition No. 3197 of 1999 has been filed by the Navnirman Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Bhayala, Taluka Patoda, District Beed (Navnirman Mandal, for short) on 7th June, 1999 initially seeking directions against the State authorities to decide its pending proposal to start a new college at Shirur Kasar, a Taluka town in Beed district, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5136 of 1997 and the said proposal was submitted for the academic year 1999-2000. By order dated 14th July, 1999 while issuing notice before admission this Court had directed that i...
Roma Govindrao Shelare and ors. Vs. Sarkari Karmachari Sahakari Grih N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR535
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Badhe, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In the present petition, declaration is sought by the petitioners in respect of list dated 15-7-1999, which has been placed on the notice board by respondent No. 3 on 25-11-1999 as illegal and not as per directions given by this Court as well as same does not contain names of the members, who are already legally admitted before 30-6-1987. Shri Badhe, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that during pendency of the present petition, election of Managing Committee of respondent No. 1 had taken place and though the said election is challenged by way of election dispute before the Co-operative Court, the present petition is maintainable and this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can exercise power to set aside such election, which is conducted on the basis of voters' list, which is per se illegal and not as per directions issued by ...
Seagull Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT186Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We are concerned in this appeal with the eligibility of parts of air-conditioners manufactured by the appellant, to the benefit of entry 11 of the Table to Notification 56/95. This entry exempts from duty beyond 30%, parts and accessories of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery, other than parts and accessories of car air-conditioners, which fall under the tariff headings which it specifies.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the goods manufactured by the appellant in respect of which the exemption was claimed, constituted an entire unit of split air-conditioning machine and that this unit being an assembly of parts was not entitled to the exemption.3. The split type of air-conditioner consists generally of two or more machines. Of these, what is referred to as the outdoor unit contains the air mechanism which is required to cool the incoming air. The air so cooled by...
Cinecita Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods described by the appellant as theatre amplifier systems qualifies for exemption under entry 2 to the Table to Notification 87/89 as claimed by the appellant, or whether they fall under entry 1 of the Table to the notification in both cases, as held by the Assistant Collector, whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Entry 1 exempts from duty "cassette deck, amplifier, equaliser, frequency synthesiser or any combination of aforesaid items, designed for use as or in audio system." Tariff headings 8518.00 or 8519.00 or 8520.00 or 8527.00 or 8543.00, or as specified in column 2, and the goods to claim the exemption must fall under any one of these headings.Entry 2 is for "all goods (other than those covered by serial 1 falling under heading 8518.00." Heading 8518.00 includes audio amplifier.3. It will be evident from these headings that an audio amplifier by itself or an audio reproduction system ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Metec Asia Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT169Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner imported in August, 1998 two consignments consisting of defective hot and cold rolled stainless steel coils. The goods were of Swedish manufacture and imported from Sweden. The department found the declared price of US $ 750 per MT to be too low in comparison with four consignments of steel coils imported in August, 1999 and late July, 1999. Notice was issued proposing enhancement of the value. The importer disputed the proposal, and was heard by the Asstt. Commissioner. Thereafter he determined the value by deducting 25% from the price at which prime coils are traded in the London Metal Exchange (LME).2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) stuck down the comparison made between the subject goods and the value of the prime material on the ground that prime material could not be compared with defective material and goods manufactured at Sweden could not be compared with goods manufactured in USA, Spain etc., ...
Shantaram Sitaram Chavan Vs. Khan Mohammed Araf Naseem
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR8; 2001(2)BomCR557
T.K. Chandrashekhar Das, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the election of the respondent, who has been declared elected in the Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 49 in Kurla. The election was held to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 11-9-1999, counting of votes were held on 6-10-1999 and the result was declared on the same day. The petitioner contested the election as a candidate of Shivsena and the respondent contested the election as a candidate of Indian National Congress. The respondent secured 87,066 votes and the petitioner secured 64,045 votes whereby the respondent was declared elected with a margin of 23,021 votes.2. The election of the respondent was challenged by the petitioner on the ground of corrupt practices falling under sections 123(3) and 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.3. The respondent filed written statement denying the allegations contained in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, this Court has framed the followin...
Manohar Amrut Satpudke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)78; 2001CriLJ4355
R.K. Batta, J. :1. The appellant along with another accused was tried for murder of Balaji Raut under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, They were also tried for attempt to murder of witness Janrao under section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By impugned judgment, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal, the Trial Court had acquitted co-accused of the charge under Section 302 as well as under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also acquitted of the charge under section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant was convicted for the murder of Balaji Raut under Section 302 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there was an incident at about 10/10.30 a.m. on 27-3-1994 between the appellant and deceased Balaji Raut. Said Balaji Raut came to his house after the said incident and informed his wife that the appellant had assa...
Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT805Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the benefit of Notification 213/86 would be available to goods which are captively consumed in the manufacture of goods supplied to export oriented unit without payment of duty under a claim for exemption under Notification 123/81. At the relevant time exemption in the notification did not include goods sent to 100% export oriented unit. The notification was subsequently amended with effect from 1-3-1992 permitting the exemption even in cases where the finished goods were cleared without payment of duty to 100% export oriented units (EOU).L & T Limited v.CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 51 had occasion to consider a similar situation with regard to rule 57C. This rule which prohibits taking credit where the final product is exempted or chargeable to nil rate of duty was amended again on 1-3-1992, to exclude the clearances to 100% EOU. The Tribunal has held that this amendment was prospective and not retrospective in effect. For th...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Cadilla Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2000
Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT362Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Cadilla Chemicals Limited, the respondent to this appeal filed by the Commissioner, imported a consignment of glucomannan, bearing the trade name Propol A. Classification was claimed under the Heading 1302.19 of the Customs Tariff. This is for vegetable extracts. The Custom House was of the view that the product was a herbal medicine which was imported in order to make use of its therapeutic properties for reduction of blood glucose level and proposed classification of the goods under Heading 30.03 of the tariff. The importer waived issue of written notice and was heard. The Assistant Commissioner passed order confirming the classification under Heading 30.03.2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention raised before him that the product was a single vegetable extract and therefore not classifiable under Heading 30.03 which is specific for medicaments consisting of two or more constituents which have been mixed together. He was also i...
Binnie and Partners (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2000
Reported in: (2006)STR319
1. Compliance with the stay order has been shown. At the request of the representative of the applicant and with the consent of the departmental representative, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming imposition of penalty on the appellant of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by the Asstt. Commissioner for the reason that return of the service tax payable by the appellant is not paid in time.3. The representative of the appellant does not dispute the delay in filing the return. He however says that the tax amount is received by the appellant from Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The bills were sent to it and according to the contract the rate of exchange applicable was the one in force on the date of payment. Hence the delay. There is no evidence in support of this contention. There is also no explanation why a provisional return could not be filed.4. I however note that the tax in question has been paid. Taking this into ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »